(This post is a first in a series of constructive criticism; reflections on improving the EA/LW ecosystem.
High confidence for the general sentiment, uncertainty remains regarding the optimal mechanism for implementation.
Post written by me, minor editing from Gemini.)
Summary
Everyone who engages in oral communication about high-impact ideas should have training to improve their ability to do so (unless they are already proficient).
Communications should be effective: clear, concise, linear, rational, and truthful (but also adapted to the audience). Sub-optimal oral communication reduces impact and can be improved.
We want more signal, less noise.
Rationale
Far too many people are communicating sub-optimally when speaking about their ideas or projects. Verbal tics like ums, ahs, likes, mumbles, and stumbles act as noise that reduces clarity of the signal. There are also issues with linearity, the flow of information, and the overall coherence of speech.
There is insufficient attention paid to how audiences will perceive a communicator and thus a communicator's message. Vibes matter a lot more to people outside our ecosystem. This reduces impact (awareness, outreach, credibility, etc).
Training would act like a force multiplier for any work that is being communicated. Secondarily, the process of optimizing for oral clarity often helps improve the underlying logic, surfacing hidden assumptions or structural flaws in the work itself.
How you speak matters. It really does. It’s a painful moment to realize that how one speaks about their work may carry as much weight in a public-facing context as allllll the effort that went into the work. I don’t want it to be true either, but ignoring the reality of human psychology is not a winning strategy.
The stakes are high. We’re playing for keeps here.
Proposal
We should have mandatory media/communications training so that all oral communicators can improve their abilities, and thus improve the impact of EA/LW work and the EA/LW ecosystem.
‘Mandatory training’ here primarily means adopting a new social norm that strongly encourages communications training, and offers resources to do so.
Secondarily, ‘mandatory training’ could mean it becomes part of an employee's professional work objective/requirement if they are within a company in a front-facing role, or a requirement for funding/grant reception (as long as the eventual product would have any oral presentation of ideas.)
Tertiarily, comms training could be a strong self-adopted norm for those who are completely independent.
Broadly, media/comms training should come to be seen as a signal for intellectual honesty, showing that you care enough about your ideas to ensure they are actually understood.
Scope
Applies to anyone that is communicating their ideas orally.
Primarily, this means those who appear on podcasts, panels, interviews, high-stakes networking, or other public fora where they speak about their ideas and work. It wouldn’t necessarily be for those who are speaking in informal conversations at conferences, but improvement in that domain is likely wise as well.
What I’m not saying
1. Written vs Oral. I’m not saying this proposal applies to all communication, but only oral communication. While there may also be an opportunity for improvement with written communication, that is not the focus of this post, and recently there were some good writing tips shared (many of which apply to speech as well).
2. Not PR-speak. The media/comms training is NOT to become slick, superficial, or epistemically deceptive. The goal is not insincerity, but to become a better version of yourself that can more successfully communicate your ideas in an effective manner.
Authenticity is important.
Considerations
I believe you only get so many weirdness points - don’t waste them on clothing, hairstyle, or peculiar speaking. EA/LW ideas are often weird enough, why risk alienating potential allies?
What does the sound of your voice convey? Is it authoritative? Competent? Engaged? Anxious? What do you want it to be?
Who you are may not be how you appear in a video interview.
What does your appearance convey? Is it how you want to be perceived? (granted, this is not entirely within one’s control, but it is partially within one’s control).
Perhaps you are known as a warm and friendly person, but under the stress of a video interview you come off as aloof and cold (unless you know that is more effective, then go for it).
Personally, I have a default smile which is inappropriate when discussing X-risks. If your facial expressions don't match your content, you create cognitive dissonance in the listener. Work to harmonize visual and auditory signals.
Perhaps you think your quick speaking speed shows your intelligence, but likely a large chunk of the audience perceives this as anxiety or is less able to follow your ideas (this is clearly more about people outside the ecosystem who don’t always speed up content like you endearing nerds).
Perhaps your reflective nature is not coming off as thoughtful, but unengaging and slow. How would you know? Are you sure?
What to do?
Put the reps in - practice, practice, practice!
Record yourself. Review the "tape" like a professional athlete. Ask friends for a brutally honest "Red Team" critique of your speaking style.
Consider acting classes, voice coaching, or a shall we create a specialized EA/LW "Communication Lab" that provides certification or structured feedback?
Conclusion (Pobody’s Nerfect)
Like many goals in life, perfection is unattainable, but marginal improvements in communication can lead to non-linear gains in impact.
We all have different baseline aptitudes, but improvement is possible for everyone. If we believe these ideas are the most important in the world, we owe it to the ideas (and each other) to speak them well.
What better time to start than now?
